Loading...
1994-02-09 WKSH ~ ~-- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING WORKSHOP SESSION FEBRUARY 9TH, 1994 INDEX Workshop Session regarding the Harris Bay Yacht Club applications relating to the SEQRA review. SEQRA Resolution Mr. & Mrs. Jack Hodgkins 36. SEQRA Resolution Michael Barody 36. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. .~ --..- '-" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING FEBRUARY 9TH, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL JAMES OBERMAYER CATHERINE LABOMBARD ROBERT PALING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK WORKSHOP SESSION REGARDING THE HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB APPLICATIONS RELATING TO THE SEQRA REVIEW. MR. BREWER-We'll just go over the engineering notes, and then let the applicant. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Tom Yarmowich got us something today, I believe it was, his comments, and it's dated February 8th. It says, "Rist- Frost has reviewed the applicant's 1/31/94 responses to engineering comments dated 1/25/94. A. SEQRA Long Form: 1. Mitigation to reduce potential impacts from repetitive site disturbances appears to be reasonable. The extended timetable for improvements increases the potential for conflict between the proposed actions and future environmental regulations, particularly in the areas of fuel storage, which is shown as a later staqe of Dr.o_i.e~T. .si T_e redevelopment. 2. Containing the parK1ng area w1tn bcrraeT ~ìmD~rs will be helpful to eliminate "swelling" of used parking areas adjacent to wetlands. Fuel transfer connections should be made inside an isolated curbed area, if compatible with the site. There are no further engineering comments relative to the area variance sought. Very truly yours, Tom Yarmowich" MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe the applicant would like to read his responses to the staff comments, and then we can make any comments we want to, and go right through them. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect for the Harris Bay Yacht Club. Our responses to the Town Staff comment's, the first one, "Physical Change to the Project Site: The proposed changes to the site are being undertaken to improve the HBYC facility. The pedestrian walkway and landscaping will be a visual improvement. The removal of the parking from the lake edge will result in a visual and drainage separation. The proposed above ground fuel tank will be more visible than the existing underground tanks. however the removal of the tanks from groundwater contact and the ability to visually inspect the tank will be a substantial improvement. There will not be increase in traffic, parking or stormwater runoff as a result of the proposed improvements. Protected Water Body: There is no increase in the number of cars in the parking area and, therefore, no increased source of pollutants. The direct runoff to the lake will be minimized by the (elevated) walkway. There will be additional runoff to the wetlands and increased infiltration, however, the gravel fill and wetlands themselves will provide filtration of runoff. The crane, fork lifts and other equipment are stored inside (the storage buildings across the road) when not in use. The project does not encroach on buffer areas along the wetlands. As can be seen in the - 1 - - aerial photograph (prior to 1983), the entire site is utilized for storage and parking to the edge of the vegetation, not to the edge of the crushed stone surface, which is indicated on the plans. The crushed stone was installed in 1990 to resurface and smooth the parking area. The stone was not extended to the edge of the vegetation. The area between the wetland vegetation and the crushed stone is a run of bank gravel material. It is the intent of HBYC to define a permanent edge along the crushed stone to establish the limits of the parking and storage areas to eliminate the irregular edge that currently exists. In many situations, a buffer area will be created between the new wood edge and the wetland vegetation. This buffer will be topsoiled and seeded. Gasoline deliveries are currently scheduled as needed during low use periods, typically Fridays and early in the week, when there is a minimum of interference with members and parked cars. The new fuel storage tank and lines will be state of the art and will have leak detection devices and overfill protection as required by EPA, DEC and Fire Codes. The tank will be situated on a level concrete pad with a 4" high curb to the rear toward the wetland and along the sides to contain any accidental spills. The front will be open to allow drainage away from the wetland. A weather proof fiberglass storage box will be located next to the tank which will be equipped with absorption material for quick response to spills. Prior to construction, siltation barriers, either a silt fence or hay bale filter dam will be installed along the shoreline or wetland adjacent to the work site. The siltation barrier will be maintained in place throughout the construction and will be removed when all work is completed and planning and vegetative cover is established. Non-Protected Water Body: A DEC permit will be submitted for filing within the mean high water level indicated on the plan. As described in item 3 above, siltation barriers will be incorporated along the shoreline and wetland. Surface and Groundwater: The proposed project will not increase the number of boats or cars utilizing the site. There will be no increase in pollutants as a result of the proposed improvements. The removal of the cars from the edge of the lake will be an improvement. The removal of the two underground fuel storage tanks from ground water contact will be an improvement. The new fuel tank with the concrete pad and spill prevention will be an improvement. Drainage: The proposed project will decrease the impervious area of the site. The drainage patterns will remain essentially the same, however, the direct runoff into the lake will be reduced and infiltration into the gravel fill and runoff to the east and west wetlands will increase slightly as a result. A stormwater management plan is not required since there is no increase in impervious area or runoff. The overall impact to site drainage will be an improvement over current conditions." There was no staff comments on Air Quality, Threatened or Endangered Species Non-threatened and Non-endangered species, Agricultural Resources. "Aesthetic Resources: The removal of the tank mound, the vending machines, dumpsters, etc. and the addition of landscaping, the walkway, new signage and general organization will be an improvement over current conditions." The rest of the areas, Historic, Recreational Opportunities, Existing Transportation, Fuel and Energy, Odors and Noise, Public Health and Safety, and Character of the Existing Community, there is no comment from Staff. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to go right into Tom's comments? MR. MILLER-Do you want me to read Tom's comments? Or the response? MR. BREWER-Maybe we should response. Maybe we'll go, comment, your response. read them, and Tom's comment, then we can have a your response, Tom's MR. MARTIN-This is Bill Levandowski, MacNamara are here in Tom's stead. unexpectedly. from Rist-Frost, and Bill He was called out of town - 2 - MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-So, they could address any comments in regard to the engineer's letter. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you think it would be all right to do it that way, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think as long as we get it all on the record. MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe the engineer could read Tom's comments, and then you could respond to it, and then if the Board has any questions about your response. MR. MARTIN-Well, we could just read it in from here. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MARTIN-Which date are we talking about now? MR. BREWER-January 25. MR. MARTIN-"Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost has reviewed the project with respect to SEQRA issues and the area variances sought by the applicant. With regard to SEQRA long form Part 2 we have the following comments: 1. Impacts on Land - The project is proposed in multiple phases occurring between 4/94 and 12/99. This extensive period of project development has the potential for repetitive site disturbances and associated construction impacts to the environment. Extended construction monitoring will be required of the Town and other permitting agencies. Additional detail on the applicant's intended phasing plan may be warranted. Proposed mitigation should be identified. 2. Impact on Water - The project proposes encroachments in wetland adjacent areas, raising grades along the shoreline and bulk petroleum storage closer to the shoreline and wetlands than existing. It is likely that the proposed grade for the shoreline walkway will either concentrate runoff into the lake at additional points or will redirect runoff towards wetlands. The reduction in buffer area adjoining wetlands for proposed parking to the east has the potential for increasing pollutants entering the wetland. The associated handling required for gasoline delivery truck off-loading and potential spills is a concern. Dedicated tank truck transfer station facilities are not indicated. How will the potential for a spill during transfers be addressed? Monitoring provisions for the storage tank and gasoline piping to fuel dispensing equipment are not indicated. What provisions are proposed? In general what mitigation measure does the applicant propose to address these potential impacts on water? 3. Impact on Public Health - The proposed gasoline storage tank is adjacent to an uncontrolled parking area. The applicant should address intentions for adequate tank venting, warnings, etc. so as not to produce any potential for vapor ignition or explosions due to normal habits of typical vehicle occupants including smoking or other sources of spark or flame. B. With regard to the Area Variance sought from 179-60 B: 1. There appears to be no location on the site which can provide the proper fuel storage tank separations without interfering with the existing clubhouse location. 2. Parking space layout is based on 10' x 20' spaces rather than minimum 9' x 20' spaces allowed in the zoning. The applicant should determine if reducing parking space size can eliminate or reduce the need for establishing new parking areas in the wetlands buffer area. Very truly yours, Tom ~armowich" MR. MILLER-Okay. "1. Impact on land: HBYC intends to structure the phasing of the site improvements to meet the capital improvement funds available for each year. It is intended that the phasing will be structured to minimize the impacts both on the members of the HBYC and the environment. A reduced copy of the site plan is attached which illustrates a potential phasing option which may be modified as a result of the variance application and - 3 - , ---"'" available funds. As each identified phase of work is initiated, the area will be barricaded from use. Where the work is adjacent to wetlands or the lake, a row of hay bales or a silt fence will be installed at the perimeter of the area to provide a siltation barrier, see attached detail. During construction, temporary boardwalks may be necessary to provide access to the docks and the building. All items of work in each phase will be completed so no area will be disturbed a second time. The siltation barriers will remain in place until all work is complete and planted areas are established. 2. Impact on Water: The project does not encroach on buffer areas along the wetlands. As can be seen in the aerial photograph (circa 1983), the entire site is utilized for storage and parking to the edge of vegetation, not to the edge of the crushed stone surface, which is the line indicated on the plans. The crushed stone was installed in 1990 to resurface and smooth the parking area. The stone was not extended to the edge of the vegetation. The area between the wetland vegetation and the crushed stone is a run of bank gravel material. It is the intent of HBYC to define a permanent edge to establish the limits of the parking and storage areas to eliminate the irregular edge that currently exists. In many situations a new or increased buffer area will be created between the new edge and the wetland vegetation. This buffer will be topsoiled and seeded. The current runoff pattern is not clearly defined. As can be noted on the existing condition plan, the site is very flat and undulating. Runoff from the perimeter of the site is generally toward the lake and adjacent wetlands. Stormwater accumulates in the center of the parking lot and apparently infiltrates into the stone and gravel fill. As a result of the proposed action, the following changes to the existing stormwater runoff is anticipated: -The proposed waterfront walkway will create a barrier along the lake which will eliminate the direct runoff from the parking lot into the lake. The plant beds and walkway will drain toward the lake but will not carry pollutants from the parking lot. -The parking lot side of the walkway will be graded toward the wetlands. It is anticipated that the existing pattern of infiltration and runoff to the east and west will continue. The area currently and will continue to sheet drain and will not concentrate to specific points. -There is no increase in the number of cars in the parking area and, therefore, no increased source of pollutants. -The direct runoff to the lake will be minimized. There will be additional runoff to the wetlands and increased infiltration, however, the gravel fill and wetlands will provide filtration of runoff before draining to the lake. -The total stormwater runoff from the site will not be increased because the extent of impervious area will decrease. The crane, fork lifts and equipment are stored inside out of the weather when not in use. Gasoline deliveries are currently scheduled as needed during low use periods, typically Fridays and early in the week, when there is a minimum of interference with members and parked cars. Because the parking lot tends to fill near the docks first and in the area of the fuel tank last, there will be adequate area for fuel deliveries and no dedicated tank truck transfer station is needed. This situation is very similar to the typical convenience store where the fuel transfer occurs in the parking lot. The new fuel storage tank and lines will be state of the art and will have leak detection devices and overfill protection as required by EPA, DEC, and Fire Codes. The tank will be situated on a level concrete pad with a 6" high curb to the rear and along the sides to contain any accidental spills. The front of the concrete pad will be open to allow drainage away from the wetland. A weather proof fiberglass storage box will be located next to the tank which will be,equipped with absorption material for quick response to spills. Drip pans will also be provided at the tank pad. 3. Impact on Public Health: The fuel storage tank will be labeled with the required signage identifying the contents and warnings of explosive material and no smoking. The vent pipe will be installed to the rear of the tank away from the parking lot and will extend to the height required by code and as agreed by the Fire Marshall. A row of 4-6" diameter steel pipe bollards will be installed to protect the tank from vehicles. B. Area Variance 1. - 4 - ~ ~ There is no location on the site that meets the setback requirements for the fuel storage tank. The existing tanks are underground and in contact with ground water. It is the intent of HBYC to improve this situation which is the reason that the area variance is being sought. 2. The layout of the parking lot indicates 10' x 20' parking spaces because the parking area is not paved and the standard 9' wide parking space is probably not an accurate representation of the parking patterns on the site. The total number of parking spaces is not an issue because the availability of overflow parking across Route 9L more than meets the requirements. As explained above in item Ai, the parking lot is not being expanded as may be interpreted from the site plan. It is the intention of the design to provide the most efficient parking layout and circulation patterns given the constraints of the site." MR. BREWER-Okay. How do you want to do this? Do you want to give them our comments first, or comments from the public? BRIAN O'DONNELL MR. O'DONNELL-Mr. Brewer, I had some more general information about the project which I think would be worth giving to the Board before we get into that. It may answer some of the questions. MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. O'DONNELL-In order to understand the project, you need to understand a little bit about the history of Harris Bay. It is, at the present time, a member owned facility. There are 271 boat slips and one service slip at Harris Bay. The members own it. Now, Harris Bay's members come from a wide area in the northeast, but many of them are right here in the Adirondacks. Twenty-six of Harris Bay's members are residents of the Town of Queensbury. Now, Harris Bay is committed to improving its site, improving its image in the Town, and maintaining the water quality in the lake. The water source for Harris Bay is the lake. The members swim in it. They boat in it, and they have a substantial investment in their facility. For example, depending on when the slips were purchased and the size boat that they can accommodate, a member would have spent between, say, $20,000 and $40,000 for a slip. So, I can assure you that the members and the Club itself are committed to the quality of the area. The site was developed as a marina, a commercial marina, probably in the 1960's, or perhaps late 50's. I'm not certain of that, and it operated as a commercial marina up through 1984. All the functions that are currently going on were going on when it was operated as a commercial marina. The difference now is that there are a group of members who own it and keep their boats there, and it's not a for profit operation. We've located a couple of photographs, or ª- photograph, which we've enlarged, and I'd like to put these up here for your review. This one is a view showing the overall site, and this one is the same photograph, enlarged a little bit more, to focus on the building area and the parking lot, and as I'm speaking, if you could just pass that around and everybody take a look at it. You can see that the area which is shown in the existing conditions plan, and the area which is shown for development, in fact was used at the time these photographs were taken, and I can tell you that the photograph existed as early as 1984, because I saw it in 1984. I believe it was taken in 1983, as part of the promotional material for Harris Bay going private and becoming a member owned Yacht Club. Some of the staff comments involved what they viewed as an expansion of the parking area. As Mr. Miller told you, around 1990, there was some resurfacing done in part of the area, the parking lot. which had developed some potholes. The crushed stone did not go all the way across the parking lot, and as you can see from the photographs there, the entire area up to the edge of vegetation has been used consistently since 1983, and actually beyond that. I'm familiar with the site back to 1980, and the parking lot has not changed since then. If you look at the - 5 - photographs, you can also see the gas mound and the area where the gas tank is proposed. You can see the picnic area in front, on the north side of the Club House, and the vending machines around the Club House. Those are the ones which we're proposing to take and move to the area of the C dock shed and screen. MR. BREWER-That's what I was going to ask. The Staff comments about moving the tank, and there's no comment back as to why you can't move the tank, the gasoline storage tank. MR. O'DONNELL-We could put the tank anywhere that we need to put it on the site. The reason that we've proposed to put it where we have is it will get it out of the parking area. It's a double containment tank, and we're going to put it on a concrete pad with curbing around the wetlands. We believe that it's perfectly safe where we've proposed it. The reason that we haven't proposed moving it back out into the parking lot is one of the objects of the exercise is to get it out of the parking area. MR. BREWER-But it says here, by moving the tank to the edge of the proposed parking area, it would be approximately 20 feet from the wetland, reconfiguration of parking lot will be expanded on the east side so that it is within inches of the wetland. MR. O'DONNELL-All right. Let me address that. All right. Lets talk about the staff's comment of expansion of the parking area. Where they're talking about is right here, these spaces right here, and if you take a look at the photograph from 1983, you see that, in fact, that is and has been a parking area all along. There is no expansion over here. What they're proposing is to take the, right now the fuel storage mound is right here, and Harris Bay is proposing to put the double containment vessel right here, out of the parking lot. What the staff is proposing that we do is take it and move it here where these parking spots are, and their theory is that, there's no gain, no loss, because there's expansion over here. Unfortunately, there is no expansion over here. This is parking area right now. Moving it over here, we don't believe, will significant decrease any environmental hazard that it does cause, or increase any safety in the way that we propose to build it. What it will do is eliminate several parking spots. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you're going to pick them up here. If you take the tank away from, if you've got the tank here, and there's no parking where the tank is, and you move it over here. MR. O'DONNELL-That's true. MR. BREWER-You're gaining them here and losing them here. So what's the difference? MR. O'DONNELL-We are going to gain three parking spots now with the gas mound now. MR. BREWER-The tank doesn't change in size, no matter whether you put it here or you put it over here, does it? MR. O'DONNELL-I'm sorry, I don't understand. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is, if you put this tank over, where does Scott suggest that you put it? MR. O'DONNELL-Right here, in these parking spots. MR. BREWER-In these parking spots. If you take, these parking spots that you're losing with the tank there, move the tank over here, you're not going to lose or gain any more, are you? The tank stays the same size. You have to have the same size pad over here as you would here. MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct. - 6 - ~ MR. BREWER-It would be like more of a mall parking effect than it would if you lost them over here, wouldn't it? MR. MILLER-Right. there's a mound. Right now, there is no parking here because MR. BREWER-Can't you take the mound out? MR. MILLER-Yes. We're going to. Underneath that mound are two fuel storage tanks, underground storage tanks, one three thousand, one four thousand. MR. BREWER-And you have to remove them. MR. MILLER-We're going to take them out, and we're going to grade this level. MR. BREWER-So why couldn't you park there if you took the tanks out and graded it level. MR. MILLER-We can. MR. BREWER-Then why can't you put the gas tank over here? MR. MILLER-If necessary, we can. We would prefer to put it here, so that we don't lose parking spaces, and we don't believe that moving it from here to here will have any significant impact on the environment. MR. BREWER-Okay. It would have less of an impact on the environment if you moved it from there to there. It would be further away from the wetland. That's what he's saying here. MR. MILLER-That's true. It would be farther away. believe that the difference is significant. We don't MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MILLER-Particularly in view of the construction that we're proposing, with the curbed pad it would sit on. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-May I ask a question at this time? For containment, you have a four inch curb around the perimeter of the tank? MR. O'DONNELL-We wanted to have it around three sides. MR. RUEL-Three sides? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. MR. RUEL-Open on the parking lot side? MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct. The reason for that is so that we don't have rain water build up in there. MR. RUEL-Now the tank is, what, 6,000 gallons? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. MR. RUEL-And I know it's double containment, but, there's a remote possibility if that full tank should break, would the containment area hold all of the gasoline? MR. O'DONNELL-Under that scenario, no it wouldn't. MR. RUEL-It would overflow over the four inch curb, right? MR. 0' DONNELL-In order for that to happen, you would have to - 7 - rupture not only the inner tank, but you'd also have to rupture the outer tank, and there's space between the two. MR. RUEL-I realize that, but I mean these things do happen. If it did happen that the tank ruptured, all right, it got hit by lighting or something, and then 6,000 gallons of gasoline would spill, the containment area would not hold it. MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct. The third containment area would not hold it. MR. RUEL-Then why do you have the containment area? MR. O'DONNELL-The reason that we've proposed the third containment area, the curbing, is in the unlikely event that there was a spill when the tank was being filled. MR. RUEL-A minor fill. MR. O'DONNELL-Exactly. MR. RUEL-But you also have a fiberglass box with absorption material to collect that, right? MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Now, what do you do with the absorption material after it's been saturated? MR. O'DONNELL-That I don't know. Miller. I'd have to refer you to Mr. MR. BREWER-Probably ENCON or something like that. MR. MILLER-Dan Behan is here. He's the manager. He would know. DAN BEHAN MR. BEHAN-I think at that point. it's treated as hazardous material. Dan Behan. I'm General Manager of Harris Bay Yacht Club, and as hazardous material, it would have to be hauled away by DOT Certified Hazardous Material Transporter to a New York State Certified site. MR. RUEL-I guess what I'm saying is, in the event of a catastrophic failure of the tank, there are no measures to prevent the gasoline from leaking out into the wetlands andlor the lake. MR. MILLER-Currently what's happened is, part of the reason for Harris Bay to replace the tank is right now we have a single wall steel tank. No containment whatsoever. MR. RUEL-Yes, I realize that. MR. MILLER-Okay. DEC is now recommending installation of double wall tanks. This tank that we're proposing has a steel tank with a space between the inside tank and the outside tank which provides, in case the inside tank ruptures for some reason, it has containment. Also, there's monitoring gages. If there's ever any liquid or anything that accumulates in that inside tank, it will show up, so you'll know there's a problem with the inside tank. All the fuel lines have to be double walled also. DEC or the EPA does not require any kind of, they require the spill prevention on the fuel filling port, and what we are going to provide is a seven gallon overflow containment. So if someone filling it spills some or overfills the tank, it's contained in this spill prevention compartment, which will drain into the tank. MR. MARTIN-Do you have any cross section detail to that effect? - 8 - -< MR. MILLER-I've got a picture here that shows a tank. You see the canister on the top is the fuel port, and that's spill prevention. So if they're taking the fuel hose, disconnecting it, and there is some spill, it's trapped in there. There is no requirement for any kind of third containment, and the reason we've provided that curb is because of the proximity to the wetland and a concern by the staff, that we felt to have a third containment just to catch some spillage, for some reason, doesn't get caught in any of the other spill containment vessels, will at least be trapped at the point it could be absorbed before it's washed off at the path. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-If this continues to be a concern, it would be my strong recommendation to get cross section detail to that effect, because we want to make sure, if it ever does come to that point, and this is installed, we have something to go by, as what we all envisioned was approved. MR. MILLER-Jim, I've submitted construction details. believe Kip Grant has them. I kind of MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Well, I'll make them available to the Board, then. MR. RUEL-Did you say that there's a sensing device in between the two tanks? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-If it was a concrete structure, poured concrete structure, with the tank mounted above it, if it did spill, it could contain all of it. None of it would go into the wetlands or the lake. MR. MILLER-That's essentially what you've got. The outer tank is a concrete structure. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I was talking about something beyond the tank. MR. O'DONNELL-I can't, as I stand here, picture what would rupture both the inner tank and the outer tank. MR. RUEL-Well, the Valdez wasn't supposed to leak either. MR. O'DONNELL-That's true, but this tank isn't going to be sailing. It's going to be stationary, separated from the parking lot by concrete bollards. MR. RUEL-Yes. It meets all the various codes, I guess. MR. O'DONNELL-Every single one of them, yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-And the secondary containment will also, it would be, like, 110 percent of the volume of the tanks? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Is that even in light of the fact that this is right next to a parking area, so that if I get somebody who's not aware that they're backing up. or they hit the accelerator by mistake and they ram right into this thing, this is going to? MR. MILLER-I asked that question of the manufacturer. This tank is manufactured by Fort Miller, and they said that they have ballistic tests on it, if we needed to. We also provided. we're going to put steel bollards along the edge of it, in case somebody's backing up, they won't hit the tank. - 9 - "- MR. BREWER-Plus they'd have to back over the wood edge also, and I think once they hit that, they know they're going to hit something. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-How about where the truck unloads? concrete containment underneath that, where connection. doing the piping? Do you need a you make the MR. MILLER-Well, the connection will be at the top of the tank. So we'll have a concrete pad that the entire tank will sit on. The connection's made on the top. So, we'll have the overflow prevention at the top of the tank, and then if for some reason something spills again, it'll drain down to the concrete pad that'll have the curb on it. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, but your connection from the truck to the tank, where will that be made? When the trucker pulls up, he has his flexible hosing, he goes to pump the gasoline into the fuel tank, where's that connection going to be made? On the pad or off the pad? MR. MILLER-Above the pad. The fuel tank itself will sit on top of a concrete pad with curbing. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. I understand that. I'm talking about when the truck pulls up, the operator gets out of the truck, he goes to fill up the tank. You'll have rigid piping that'll run from the tank, steel piping, carbon steel piping, or whatever, from the tank to the parking lot, where he'll make his connection, with flexible hose. right? Will you have containment at that location? MR. MILLER-No. The fill is on top. He'll connect his hose to a fill port on top of the tank. MR. OBERMAYER-On top of the tank? Okay. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. I see. I won't be a remote. Okay. MR. MILLER-So the connection will be made on the pad. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. This is a 1,000 gallon tank? MR. MILLER-Six thousand. MR. MARTIN-At that size, Jim, what do you expect the rate of delivery to be? MR. MILLER-Well, we talked about that. We figured once a week. MR. OBERMAYER-And the tank is equipped with high level alarms, so when the truck operator is filling the tank, it'll have a level indicator, a high level alarm, in case you get into a situation where, protect against overfill? MR. MILLER-Yes. It's also going to have emergency venting, if for some reason during filling the venting, the primary vent doesn't activate, there'll be a pressure sensitive valve that'll prevent backup and spillage that way. MR. O'DONNELL-Are there any other questions about the tank, before we leave that area? All right. Generally at Harris Bay, the current operations are this. Many of the members use their docks for their own private boats. Some members rent docks to others. They're not going to be using it that season, and the Club has a few, I think perhaps 15 or 20, that it rents on its own. There are also auxiliary services on the site. There's a boat repair facility across the road. There is a ship store. We do sell gas. - 10 - We have pump out facilities. We have a Class A Marina permit from the Lake George Park Commission, which considers Harris Bay to be commercial under its regulations, even though it's private a member owned. A few years ago, Harris Bay's members embarked on a dock replacement program and replaced all the docks out in the lake with a lasting cedar floating dock system, not pressurized, pressure treated wood or anything like that, to the tune of about a half million dollars. Now Harris Bay is coming before you with this program to upgrade the shore facilities, and one thing I would like to stress is the Club has the right to continue to operate exactly as it is. It doesn't have to do any of these things. It's proposing to do all of these things because it feels that they're environmentally sound, and they will enhance the appearance and the value of the property. The proposal covers several different aspects of the Club. We've already talked about the gas mound. There's going to be some grading of the parking lot, as Mr. Miller described. Essentially, it's going to continue to be the flat surface that it is, although it's going to be graded with a slight incline off toward the wetlands. The Club is proposing to put in a stone walkway along the lake front. MR. BREWER-How far back is that from the lake? MR. O'DONNELL-It's essentially right at the shoreline. The object of the walkway is to provide a surface slightly above the mean high water mark, with dry access connecting to the dock heads, or to the docks. Hopefully, this will have the effect of reducing, somewhat, the parking lot (lost word). In addition, the Club is proposing to collect the vending machines which are on site now, and which you can see in the photographs. There is an ice machine and a Coke machine, and a pay phone and things of that nature, move them off the decks where they currently exist, and build a small addition on the sea dock shed, which, if you look in the photograph, you can also see. It's gray in the picture there. The Club is proposing to tie together the decks on the Club House and provide a handicapped access ramp, and the Club is proposing to change the internal configuration of rooms in the Club House. That's not part of the program that's before you right now, because it's not something that requires a permit or SEQRA review. It's simply a building permit. This aspect of it will allow hard surface access to three of the Club's entrances right now. Presently, there are stairs and separate decks accessing all of them. There is no way for a handicapped person to get from the parking lot into the building. The Club is also proposing to take the recycling dumpsters, move them over to this side of the parking lot. and screen them from view. It's proposing to add landscaping, and to move the vacuum tank for the pump out from its present location right here, to a location right here on the other side of the building and screen it. MR. BREWER-I don't remember. Is the size of that going to change? MR. O'DONNELL-No. No, nothing is going to change except it's going to move from this side of the building to this side of the building. MR. BREWER-And that's pumped in from a truck, or whatever? MR. O'DONNELL-No. That is the vacuum for the pump out for boats. MR. BREWER-You'll have to change your lines then, right? If you're going to move it from here to here? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. There'll have to be a line installed from here to here. The~e's a pit right here now where the vacuum tank is. That's not going to change, but there would have to be a line installed from here over to here. In addition to that, the Club is proposing to add some fill on the storage building side of the street, to raise that above the mean high water level. All of the area where the Club is proposing to put fill has been previously - 11 - ......... -,,' '.-~' ...,.~---- ---- filled when it was proper to do so. The wetlands have all been flagged by the APA, and we've sent the survey showing where they flagged up to, and we just haven't gotten it back from them yet. We're not proposing to encroach into the wetlands one inch. The Club is proposing to mark the areas of fill now, where they are not currently marked. Now, there was a lot of discussion at the public meeting about the sewer system, and I would like to emphasize that there is no change at all proposed for this sewer system, except moving the vacuum tank. MR. BREWER-And adding lines. MR. O'DONNELL-And adding the line from here to here. MR. BREWER-Right. That altering the septic at had, can we challenge portion of it? was my question to our Attorney. If he is all, Paul, the concerns that Mr. Roulier that whole septic system, or just that MR. DUSEK-I think, in order to tie in the entire septic system, you'd have to show some relationship between his proposed action and the system. It seems to me that, unless I'm missing something here. there's absolutely no change being made whatsoever, other than to move a facility from one point to another point. Am I missing something? MR. O'DONNELL-No. You're absolutely correct, and if that stands between the Club and the permit, my guess is, the Board of Directors will delete that from the project, and leave it exactly as it is. The system works. It has worked. Harris Bay is under close scrutiny because people make complaints all the time. The complaints are investigated all the time, and every investigation showed the system is working. Harris Bay has no more (lost word) than any other tax payer in the Town of Queensbury, and is a tax payer to the tune of about $40,000 plus per year, to engage in an expensive project to replace a working system, no more than any of you would replace the working systems in your back yard. We understand that municipal sewage treatment is under study at the moment. Harris Bay thinks that's a wonderful idea and supports it and would gladly tie in to it, but in the interim, there is no proposal before you to change that septic system at all. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to back up a little bit. You just made the comment that you get, you have received numerous complaints about the septic system from the neighbors. MR. O'DONNELL-We haven't. For some reason. people call the Lake George Park Commission and complain. Every time they do, the Lake George Park Commission comes out and investigates. MR. MACEWAN-How many complaints have you been getting, on an average? MR. O'DONNELL-They generally don't tell us. I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-How many times have they come out to see you? MR. O'DONNELL-Personally, I don't know that. What I'm telling you is what Mike White of the Lake George Park Commission has told us. MR. MACEWAN-Does it only happen during the summer months, your busy months? MR. O'DONNELL-We had one from Mr. Roulier after the system was shut down in December. MR. MACEWAN-In December. Did you have any during June, July, and August? MR. O'DONNELL-Not that I personally know of. - 12 - MR. MACEWAN-Could you answer that question, as General Manager? Did you have a lot of complaints during the summer months regarding the septic? MR. BEHAN-Not to me, personally. MR. MACEWAN-To any members of your staff who report to you? MR. BEHAN-No. MR. STARK-They don't get the complaints. MR. BREWER-No. Commission. The complaints go to the Lake George Park MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but I guess what I'm driving at, here, they're saying that the Park Commission comes out to investigate, or to respond to the complaints that they're receiving, how many times does the Park Commission come out? MR. O'DONNELL-I don't know. MR. BREWER-They don't have to announce that they're there, I don't think, Craig. MR. O'DONNELL-Mr. White told me that, when they get them, they come out. every time. MR. MACEWAN-So they may not necessarily say, we're here because someone made a complaint. They could just come out and investigate on their own and leave without ever telling you they've been there. MR. O'DONNELL-I suppose that's possible. MR. MARTIN-As a septic system on the lake, it receives an annual inspection anyhow, and I believe the inspection at this particular site was done, if I'm not mistaken, in August, and that's their standard visual inspection, and we've got notes in my office, or the actual noted diagram from the inspector that was present on the site, and that lays out a design of the system that shows a system as was described at their last meeting, a pumping tank under the parking lot that goes to a line along the wetland, it crosses under the road. It continues up along the other side of the road about a quarter mile up the road, to a large conventional septic tank off the side of the road, and I have it right here, as a matter of fact. MR. MACEWAN-But you've received some sort of correspondence from the Lake George Park Commission regarding any inspections they've done, or in response to complaints, visits that they've made out there? MR. MARTIN-I made an inquiry to the Park Commission to find out if they do, in fact, know what the system is comprised of. That was done in January, and I've got their letter here. "As you requested, we have searched our files for information concerning the wastewater treatment system", this is dated January 26th of this year, "serving the Harris Bay Yacht Club. We do not have any information about the system at the time it was built, such as copies of permits, approvals, etc.. however, in May of 1993", I stand corrected, "we inspected the property in response to a pollution hotline communication. That investigation did not warrant further action at the time, and the case was closed. In closed is a copy of the sketch Roger Smith made of the system during that inspection. This is probably the best information about the system that exists unless Queensbury inspected the property as part of the annual inspection program delegated to the Town. Please feel free, if you have any questions, to call me. Tom Wardell, Director of Engineering for the Park Commission", and attached with that is a hand drawn diagram of the system, that it - 13 - "- - goes to three seepage pits at some distance less than 50 feet from the edge of the wetland. MR. MACEWAN-So it sounds like they've made only ~ trip out there, not numerous trips. MR. MARTIN-I think, I know, personally, of two, this one and there was one done by the Town, I believe, in 1988 or '89, and the County representatives were present as well. Dr. Evans was there, Dave Hatin, and Dan Olsen from the County, and those are the only two I know of directly, and I'll show you the diagram of the system. MR. BREWER-And you also said. this spring, when the system is working, you're going to go out there again. MR. MARTIN-Not, in the spring, in July. I think that's the most timely time to do a test, and I think the bone of contention, here, is what constitutes a failure. The Park Commission has been looking for the obvious signs of odor or visual leachate coming up through the ground, which are the typical signs of failure. However, there is some concern that there is unusual levels of coliform present in the wetland, and the only way to accurately test for that, in mY view, is to go out, at the peak usage of the system, which I would estimate to be late July. MR. MACEWAN-When the Park Commission went out to inspect the site, what do they normally look for or do as part of their inspection routine? MR. MARTIN-I think they interview the owner, or in this case probably, I would imagine, might have interviewed you directly, as to what the system is constituted to be. Oftentimes with properties around the lake, nobody has any direct knowledge of what the systems are, as they weren't there when they were installed. This is the same thing in this case, and I don't know if this information leading to this diagram was obtained directly from you, or if they went out and did some sort of subsurface investigation on the grounds in that area of seepage pits. I don't know how they arrived at that diagram. MR. MACEWAN-So we really don't know if they routinely take samples or anything like that? MR. MARTIN-Well, they didn't take any water samples yet, no. MR. O'DONNELL-They have, in the past, and I've gotten copies of a couple of them in the files. What Mr. White told me is they've never found any reason to go any further with their investigation than coming out and doing whatever looking and testing they did. MR. RUEL-Did you ever get the system pumped out? MR. BREWER-There's a new leach bed, isn't there? MR. O'DONNELL-Right, it goes into a leach field. MR. BREWER-Field. MR. RUEL-I know, but do you ever get it pumped out? MR. MARTIN-Well, not leach fie ld. There's three seepage pits there. That's a different approach to the treatment. MR. O'DONNELL-I don't know. MR. MARTIN-Those are essentially dry wells, for lack of a better way to describe them. MR. MACEWAN-That's all I have for right now. - 14 - '-" MR. O'DONNELL-All right. I want to emphasize, a sewage system is not part of the project which is before you. The agencies which have regulatory authority are exercising it. If they ever tell us that there is a problem, we will address the specific problem if and when it occurs. On the project which is before you, we believe that all aspects of it are positive, and we believe that you should find a negative declaration for the SEQRA review. MR. MACEWAN-A question for you regarding the walkway. How high is that walkway above the high water mark? MR. MILLER-Six tenths of a foot. We are proposing that it would be set at 320.8. Mean high water is 320.2. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. O'DONNELL-Any other questions on any phase of the project? MR. MACEWAN-I think we had asked before, and I don't really think we got an answer, but you were intending on bringing in more fill? MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. There will be some fill. MR. MACEWAN-Someone asked, I think, how much did you anticipate bringing in. I don't think we ever really got an answer. MR. MILLER-Well, we did, I'm not sure I have that information here right now. We did some calculations of the fill for the DEC permit, which would be for filling of the area of the mean high water mark, and it was less than 200 yards. I don't remember exactly. I could provide that information. MR. MACEWAN-Were you anticipating putting in more fill in the parking area itself? MR. MILLER-Only as required, where we would have to meet the grades for the walkway. So I envision there would be some fill placed toward the walkway and graded back. The majority of the parking area right now is satisfactory. It doesn't need filling. MR. MACEWAN-But I think there was some concerns that were brought up, the last time we met, regarding, it's kind of like an annual thing, or semi-annually. MR. O'DONNELL-I heard that, and let me assure you, the sky is not falling. Fill has been added to that parking lot, in my memory, once. and that was a small amount in 1990, to resurface areas that had developed potholes. MR. MACEWAN-How much fill was brought in? MR. O'DONNELL-I can't tell you the exact amount. I can tell you it was below the level at which site plan review is required. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to raise the elevation of the parking lot, so that it drains better? MR. O'DONNELL-We're planning to raise the elevation a little bit, in this area, where it's below the mean high water mark, and on the other side of the road, we're planning to add some fill to the area which is filled in front of the building, the storage building, and inside the storage building, because that has a tendency to flood in the spring as well. MR. MACEWAN-Then that would be more than just the filling of potholes. MR. O'DONNELL-On the other side of the road, yes it would. MR. MACEWAN-Even on that side of the road. You said you wanted to bring it up to leve 1, right there. That's more than just a - 15 - -- -- pothole. MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct. The filling of the potholes occurred in 1990. That's not what we're proposing to do now. Now we're proposing to bring the parking lot up, in areas where it's below the mean high water mark, to the mean high water mark. MR. BREWER-The whole parking lot's under water in the spring, I mean the whole parking lot. MR. O'DONNELL-Some springs, like last spring, that's correct. MR. BREWER-I've never seen a spring where there wasn't water in that parking lot, never in my life, and I've been going by there 20 years. MR. O'DONNELL-I have seen springs where there has been water in the parking lot, but not the entire parking lot. I've also seen springs like last spring, where there ~ water in the entire parking lot, but on those occasion, the water has risen above the mean high water level, and we're not planning to try and prevent that. MR. BREWER-So you're going to bring the whole parking lot up to 320.2, or below that? MR. MILLER-Well, that's the walkway, 320.8. There's areas of the parking lot, they'll be above 320.2, but they'll be less than 320.8. The existing conditions plan shows some of the spot grades throughout the site. One of the comments was, last spring, I checked with the Lake George Park Commission, and the water level last spring was 320.91. So, it was .71 feet above mean high water. and that was one of the highest years on record. MR. MACEWAN-It'll probably be higher than that this year. MR. MILLER-The grades throughout the parking lot range from, like, 320.4, to across, maybe the high point's like 320.6, but primarily what we're going to do, most of the filling would be in the area of the walkway, which, as this line here indicates where the high water line, the 320.2 line, comes across the site now. MR. MACEWAN-That shaded tan area to the right side of the site plan, is that where you plan on filling as well? MR. MILLER-Well, this was the area, as we discussed earlier, this line here indicated the limits of the crushed stone, and there was some concern that we were encroaching. We made this modification to the plan, where this is actually existing fill area now where there's existing parking lot. What we'd like to do in this area is add the wood edge, and there would be some grading in that area, but it wouldn't be that much. We could go through and calculate all the fill. I anticipated we probably need to do that as part of the site plan review, because we'd need approval for that. MR. STARK-Tim, what difference does it make whether he puts 200 yards of fill in or 2,000 yards of fill? MR. BREWER-It doesn't. I was just asking if they were going to fill the whole parking lot. MR. STARK-I mean, he's going to bring it up above the mean high water mark, let it go at that. I think you're killing him. MR. BREWER-Well, because if you look at this drawing, George, all that water laying in there is all, the front of the parking lot towards the shoreline is all tapered towards the lake. That's what difference it makes. MR. STARK-He's going to fill it up, Tim, so it doesn't run in the - 16 - -- lake. MR. BREWER-It's how they show it here, George, if you look at the drawing. MR. STARK-I've got the drawing, Tim. They're filling it up so it doesn't run into the lake. MR. MILLER-What we would do is where the walkway is filled, we would grade back from there. So instead of, the parking lot now it tends to, the parking lot is very flat. Most of it doesn't drain at all. It sits there and goes down into the gravel eventually, but now we have a condition where the front portion of the parking area drains toward the lake, so when we raise this walkway area, we would have to fill some of the parking lot so that we would get some pitch back away from it. So, yes, there would be some filling, and to tell you the truth, we haven't calculated it for the whole area, at this point. We just looked at the fill that would be within the mean high water line, would be part of the DEC permit. MR. 0' DONNELL-If you look at the site grades, on the plan that you've got, you can see, looking through the parking lot, it is nearly perfectly flat. There's very little fluctuation there. Any other questions about any aspect of the project? There was one other thing I didn't mention, which is in the project, and that is the fence, the security fence on the storage building side of the road, for which no variance is required. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you required to put a fence around the fuel oil tank, too, or not? MR. MILLER-Not that I know of. MR. BREWER-I think, at site plan, we can ask him to, but MR. RUEL-You have a lot of awnings and canvas, right? You don't propose to have them blue, do you? MR. O'DONNELL-We have one awning. I don't know what color it will be. MR. RUEL-A nice neutral color. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, that's at site plan, Roger. MR. MARTIN-Tim, I have a question. I note that the improvements here are to span five phases. What would be the reaction to a scenario where the Board would provide a preliminary conceptual approval over the entire project, but withhold final approval on phases two through five, and grant only final approval on phase one, with the applicant having to come back for that final approval on each individual phase, as necessary, because I have a concern here, from an enforcement standpoint, of following an approval over potentially a five year period. I know the Board has done this in the past with, like, subdivision, and I think that would be a reasonable way to approach this. It gives you your conceptual approval of the project, if they do get that far, but yet it gives some control, because we have staff changes and so on in the Town, and these things can get lost in the wash sometimes. MR. BREWER-Then they'd have to come in with a phased plan, correct? MR. MARTIN-Well, they do show phases already. They show some five phases in, I believe, they're submission to Rist-Frost. I just want to see what the reaction would be to that sort of approach to the project. MR. O'DONNELL-My initial reaction is this. One of the things that is an issue for Harris Bay is cost, and part of the cost is what - 17 - -- '.- we're doing now, the permitting process. If we're required to go through that, several times, we increase the cost of doing it several times. MR. MARTIN-Now don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying to start from Ground Zero with every phase that you attempt to do. I'm just saying, have a stop check mechanism here to make sure that phase four was, in fact, what it was envisioned to be, what would then be three or four years ago. MR. O'DONNELL-I can't see where that would really serve a valid function. What Harris Bay is attempting to do is come to all the regulatory agencies and say, this is the project. May we get the permits necessary to do it. Once the permits are issued, that's what Harris Bay is obligated to do. Nothing different. We can't throw in an extra fuel storage tank, for example. Harris Bay does not want to be coming back and back and back. They want to get the permitting process done once, know what they have the approval to do, and then as they collect the resources to do that, implement it. MR. MARTIN-The only reason I raise the point is as you review the SEQRA form that the Board is going to have to go through, the Part II, the first question relates to the length of the construction process, and it says, construction, then, will continue for more than one year, or involve more than one phase or stage. I just think that would be a method of relieving impact associated with that question. MR. O'DONNELL-Let me tell you why Harris Bay is proposing to do it in phases. They're proposing to fund it not by going to the bank and taking out a loan, but by assessing the membership a capital improvement assessment, which they've been doing for probably a year, or perhaps a little bit less than that. If we have to keep coming back, with the very same project which is on the table now, that will not increase your monitoring ability one bit. It won't change the pro j ect one bit. It will, however, increase the cost and the uncertainty to Harris Bay. MR. BREWER-Is there a fee for coming back, Jim, for phases? MR. STARK-He's talking about the lawyer's fees, Tim. coming in here is nothing. The fee MR. BREWER-Yes, but I understand what Jim's saying. like a subdivision. It's almost MR. MARTIN-I just, having looked at things that have happened since I've been here, I see a five year process here. and it gets difficult, when you're four and half years down the road, to track what was actually approved. MR. O'DONNELL-I can't see any difficulty in tracking. We've given it all to you, every bit of it, and that's what it is proposed, and if that's what's permitted, that's what will be built, and you have every single bit of it on file. MR. BREWER-But like Jim said, times change and people change. Things that possibly might not be done in phase three, and Jim's down the road somewhere, and somebody else is not here, I'm not saying that it'll happen, but it's possible that it could happen, and we do it with subdivisions. MR. O'DONNELL-If that did happen, all you need to do is go to the documents which we've given you, right now at the outset, take a look at what we've proposed. Take a look at what we've done. A return trip back in here for additional permitting won't help that process. MR. BREWER-Not additional permitting. - 18 - \,\ MR. MACEWAN-If I get your drift, it just wouldn't allow them to go on to the next phase until that particular phase is complete. right? MR. DUSEK-I think, from what I see happening here, Jim is looking at it as a condition on a conceptual review and approval of the site plan, with the second phase occurring later. There would be, if a conceptual approval was given, and the applicant relied upon it, it seems to me that the Town would be hard-pressed to change anything at a future date. So that gives the applicant ~ assurances. Although until you get that final approval, nothing is in stone, and I understand the applicant's concern. One concern I have though is the concept of phasing is not under site plan review, as an allowed item. MR. MARTIN-That's why I raised the point. MR. DUSEK-You do have a right to impose conditions, but as far as I know, site plan review is normally a one shot review, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what I'm saying. We have this one window frame of time, here, to look at this, and if it does get to the point where they do act on this, and an approval is given, then. MR. DUSEK-I think, from a legal perspective, because your site plan review is usually a one shot approval, and that's what's outlined in the Ordinance, I think you're on more solid ground just issuing a regular approval, and I think that the arguments that are made here, that you always have the right to enforce that approval, there's no question in my mind that that's true, and it's really just up to the Town to follow up on it and see that the things have been done, and if they haven't, they can take an enforcement action against them, because they're in violation of the site plan, and that makes them in violation of the zoning. MR. BREWER-So how long does their approval last? If we give them an approval, whenever. MR. DUSEK-Their approval lasts through the end of the phasing of the project, and I believe the only other restriction is in the Ordinance that they have to commence activities in a year after site plan? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-So, if we give them an approval now, their permit lasts five years, or lasts forever? MR. DUSEK-Well, conceivably, as long as they take action within the first year to commence the work, it's whenever it finally gets done. MR. MACEWAN-So they could be working on it 20 years from now? MR. DUSEK-That's conceivable, unless, now that's a condition you could put on it, that they have to complete it by a certain time period. That might be, maybe answer your concerns your concerns a little bit more practically then trying to phase it. MR. MACEWAN-I think where Jim is going with this thing, though, is from the monitoring standpoint, to assure that each part of this construction is going to be done in accordance with the plans. Where we've had previous site plans, who've said that they were going to adhere to something, not that these folks wouldn't. It's difficult to police it after the fact, to get them back in here, to get them to adhere to what they agreed to. MR. DUSEK-I think what ~ have seen, as your Attorney, because I've been involved in a few of these, that the difficulty has arisen, not because of the inabi Ii ty to do it, but rather because the - 19 - contingencies and the conditions that were placed on the approval and the very nature of the approval makes it very difficult to interpret what it was they were supposed to do and when they were supposed to do it. I think if you put together a very solid regulation, and the thing that came to mind is putting an outside ending date when the thing will expire, then you've got a very tight frame work, and it's no different than picking up this book and looking at somebody's property and saying, are they in compliance. They could take this diagram up and the information in your contingencies that you put on it, your conditions, and say, are they in compliance. My thought is I really don't see where the phasing gets you anything more than what you would have, as long as your approval is very clear. The other thing that bothers me about the phasing is that it is not provided for under your current site plan ordinance, and I think that you'd be better to have a good strong conditioned site plan, something the Town can pick up at any time and say, are they in compliance, and like I say, you can put dates in there, so that you're sure the thing gets finished up, or is, at that point, dropped. MR. BREWER-Do you have an objection to that? MR. 0' DONNELL-I don't have an obj ection to the idea of putting dates in per sea Depending on what the dates are, I mayor may not have an objection. Harris Bay's intent is to pay for this thing by assessing the membership pay as you go, essentially, and if the date is so short that the project can't be completed by doing that, it would be a problem. Now, five years is the target that Harris Bay is looking at for doing this. Depending on the permitting costs, the Club may burn a sufficient amount of resources in soft costs, that it's going to be longer than five years, or the cost of doing something may be greater than initially is anticipated, and it may be more than five years. So if you're looking at imposing an outside date, I'd like to see it more than five years. MR. MACEWAN-At that point, an alternative we would have is if you did exceed, and we got to the point where we gave you a site plan approval, and five years we put the meter on it, and at five years you felt that you weren't going to meet your expectations, you can always come back in here and try to get an extension. MR. O'DONNELL-That's true, but at that point. MR. BREWER-Then again, it's more cost. MR. MACEWAN-But it's cost five years down the road. MR. 0' DONNELL-That's true, but it's sti II cost that can't be committed to actually putting material on the ground. Every time we have to come back in for a permit, there's the chance that something will go wrong. The Board may change and for some reason somebody may not like it, and say no, in which case. MR. MACEWAN-Well, I guess there's a gamble to everything that we do. MR. O'DONNELL-That's true. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, we try to keep it to a minimum for you, as well as keep the Town's best interest at heart. MR. O'DONNELL-Which is why we're trying to do this by giving you the entire project up front, and getting the approvals for it up front. MR. MARTIN-Well then, maybe, as another suggestion, how about an annual report to the Board, as to the progress? MR. O'DONNELL-That's certainly doable. - 20 - MR. PALING-How do you incorporate changes to the Ordinance into something like this, if there's one approval? MR. DUSEK-I don't know that I understand the question. MR. PALING-Well, if the Ordinance changes, before they get to Phase Three or Four, or whatever phase, do they have to go by the new Ordinance or what was in effect at the time that approval was given? MR. DUSEK-As it stands right now, they go by what the approval that was given to them, so long as they've started the work. They have what they call a vested right in that. MR. PALING-For all phases? MR. DUSEK-For everything, right, as part of your review. MR. PALING-It seems kind of a long time to extend that, isn't it. if it's going to take five years? MR. DUSEK-I don't think five years, under today's standards, is unreasonable. We've got PUD's that had twenty year projections that the Town Board built into the PUD language and they were frozen as of the date, this would be a couple of years ago. The comparisons, of course, you don't know what the new technology's going to bring, and we certainly know more today, for instance, than we did back in the 1960's, and I think that's what everybody's concern is, but I've also noticed, and if you study from the 60's to the present time, it seems to me that, in an integral of five to seven years, not too much changes, and then there's, after that, yes, 10, 20 years, I think there's enough time for something to happen. Right now, if you gave the approval, and say you put five years or whatever you put on it, at that point, they'd be locked in under today's standards with those permits. MR. PALING-Based on what you're saying, there probably should be some kind of an outside date put on this, five years or whatever. MR. DUSEK-Five, six, seven years, whatever you think is reasonable. and you can agree with, with the applicant. MR. O'DONNELL-I would not like to see it less than seven years, because we don't know, at this point, what the cost is going to be, and if we have to come back before completing it, whatever we spend comes back, can't be used to put material in place on the gravel. So I told you how the Club plans to finance this, and I would ask you to consider that, if you're planning to put an outside date on it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions before we go to the public? MR. RUEL-If the applicant had come in without phasing this program, had just indicated that this is the total program, and asked for approval on that, would we, then, insist on the time limitation? MR. BREWER-I don't know, but he is. That's the fact, he is. MR. MARTIN-My main concern length of time. I think reporting process. is not even the there should be phasing. some, at It's the least, a MR. BREWER-I mean, he's being up front with us, saying it's going to take him at least five years to do it. Maybe they'll do it in three. I don't know. MR. O'DONNELL-Probably not. MR. BREWER-Well, it's a possibility. - 21 - MR. O'DONNELL-That's unlikely, in view of what we anticipate the cost is going to be. As Mr. Ruel correctly points out, if we had come in and said, this is the project, and we got the approval for it, and we started it within one year, we would be perfectly within our rights in taking as long as it took to do it. MR. RUEL-Yes. That's the point I was making. Yes. MR. O'DONNELL-Yes. This project won't be ongoing for the whole five years. The first year, the amount of construction might take five to six weeks to (lost word) that entire year's worth of work, because obviously this type of facility, we're not going to be constructing in peak season. The best construction season is usually in the fall, and part of our response to the Town Engineer's concern about the phasing is that we would do a specific area and everything would be finished in that, so that when that phase was done, we weren't going to leave the site half graded and not seeded and that type of thing. We'd go in there and do all components within that area, for that year's budget, and then the next year, do the next component of it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Board? J;s there anyone else with a question on the MR. OBERMAYER-I was just curious to see why you, just as a general question, why you chose the different phasing the way you did, instead of yanking the tanks out of the ground first? MR. BREWER-I would think more so expense. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, you live in a very environmentally sensitive area in here. Why wouldn't you consider yanking the tanks first and putting those above grade? MR. MILLER-With some of the other improvements that are going on, and the inside of the Club House and things, that's probably not going to be practical as a first phase. One of the things, that plan we suggested there was for discussion, and it's my understanding when we get into site plan review, we would finalize the question, the phasing, and possibly, by the time we get to that point, we could look at some of the budgeting and find out more. MR. 0' DONNELL-As we get approval, and lets say we're about to undertake Phase I. There will be requests for proposals put out and bids submitted on the cost of Phase I. We'll get hard numbers at that point, let the contracts and do the work. We're going to be able to have really specific cost figures on all of the phases up front, because the really specific cost figures are going to require contract, and we know that the funds are not available all at once to enter contracts all at once. So we're doing the best that we can on guessing the prices and guessing the length of time which would likely be involved. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? Okay. I'll open it back up to the public. Just come up one at a time and identify yourself and state your questions, if you would, or comments. KARL KROETZ MR. KROETZ- My name is Karl Kroetz. I have lived on Harris Bay for 27 years, year round. Before that time, I served this area since 1950, when it truly was a wetland, and I want to agree with what someone said here, that I can't remember a year when you didn't need hip boots to get out to those floating docks. Last year was no exception. We have had years when the water was higher than last year. So you need hip boots to get out there, which made it interesting to me when I heard people say how careful they were on placing something in this area, so that it was 20 feet away from the wetlands. The whole marina is in a wetland. It is flooded. Anything that goes on that marina, as it sits right now, this - 22 - spring will be, not only in the wetland, it'll be in Lake George, which means we've got to be very careful what we put on this marina, because it is in the water, on Lake George. It has been filled many times, and each time it settles down. As a matter of fact, that was one of the problems with building the road across there. It keeps settling. So my only point is, I think you should keep in mind that we have to be very careful what goes on this site, because it will directly be in Lake George. MR. BREWER-Thank you. I just want to remind whoever speaks that we are specifically talking about the SEQRA tonight. There will be a hearing on the site plan review also. Okay. Come right up. please. BILL DAVONE MR. DAVONE-My name is Bill Davone. I walk this area at least three to four times every week for the last 17 years. I want to make sure you understand this sewage system. The pipe that they talk about comes out here, goes under the road, through a culvert, and then is a steel two to three inch pipe that is suspended in the wetlands on some supports and drapes from support to support in and out of the wetland water. Now, you could have freeze ups right now, in some of those dips, have split pipes, split joints. when they put it back into operation, you'd never know the difference. What you would have is you'd have leakage, right into the wetlands. Now the septic system that's out here is only one concern. A more significant concern is that pipe line. Now that pipe line was replaced about two or three years. There used to be a polyurethene, or polyethelyne pipe. They used to disconnect in the seasons and drain it. Now that there's a steel pipe, they are not doing that. That is a major concern. Now you've talked before, concerned yourself about the pollution that you may have as a result of gasoline spills. We talked about double walled piping, double walled tanks. You don't have any double wall here on this. MR. RUEL-What material is this new pipe? MR. DAVONE-Steel. Steel pipe with screw joints and draped, with these supports maybe 50 to 100 feet between, and it goes in and out of the water. MR. RUEL-Why do they bother to put supports? MR. DAVONE-I to see that submerged. pollution. don't know. It's to our advantage. At least we get there's a pipe there. The other way, it would be It's very hazardous, if you're concerned with MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. DAVONE-One other point, they're spending a lot of money, but they're avoiding that. JOE ROULIER MR. ROULIER-Good evening. I'm Joe Roulier. I'd like to discuss all of the issues here for a few minutes, but while we're on the septic, I would just like to tell you a couple of things. After the meeting that we had approximately two weeks ago, the following morning, after making three phone calls, I was able to find out exactly what's in place over in the leach field area of the Harris Bay Yacht Club, and I know that we've tried to, in the past, get this information from the Yacht Club, but apparently, they have not been willing, for whatever reason, to provide information and always saying, well, they simply don't know what's there. It's working. We don't see any sign of any pollution, but three phone calls, one hour later, I had my hand on what's in that area. I'll gladly share that information with you. The system was installed by Scott McLaughlin. There is a 1,000 gallon septic tank in that - 23 - area, and three seepage pits. There's no perforated pipe, as we know conventional leach field systems today. So what happens is that this high concentration of sewage from all the boats that's pumped out, and chemicals, is pumped into this particular area, and then dissipated through the three seepage pits. Seepage pits are generally a good way of disposing of liquids and sewage. The problem here is that we have not only 271 boats that we're pumping from, but what Mr. O'Donnell didn't tell you was all the other boats that come in off Lake George, it could be 500 additional boats coming in to have their septic systems pumped at anyone given time. The significant problem, though, is that the seepage pits are immediately adjoining a wetland area. They are, the pits are as close to the wetland area as I am sitting right now to you gentleman and lady. I went up to the Freshwater Institute and I ran all this by them up there, and their comment was, why do you think we have all these new rules in place saying that the leachfields or the septic systems have to be 200 feet. They said a system like that today, under no circumstances, could ever be built that close to the wetland area. Additionally, I was in touch wi th the engineer that designed the system. I want you to know that I am attempting to get the original design, that he prepared, that's on file. I was hoping I'd have it for this meeting tonight, but I do not have it for the meeting. MR. BREWER-Would ~ have that on file? MR. MARTIN-No. I also made a call to the Department of Health, and Brian Fear is saying he doesn't have it. MR. ROULIER-The engineer that prepared this system and the design that I just spoke about, told me that the system is in excess of 20 years old when the marina was considerably smaller, and that the system was never intended for design to be used as a pump out station for the boats that come in and are pumped out on Lake George. It was only designed to handle the sewage that comes from, then at the time the existing bUilding that was on that property. MR. MACEWAN-Who told you this? MR. ROULIER-He has asked me to remain anonymous at this time, but I intend to provide all this additional information, and hopefully, at a later date, a letter verifying what I am saying to you now. There was a considerably smaller building. The building that they have on this property right now, I would estimate was built approximately 10 years ago, and if you look in one of the, I'm not sure which application it's in. It says how it handles the, some showers. I have no idea how many showers are in the building, and also toilet facilities that are in the building. I don't know if those showers and those toilets were increased from the original building that was there, but in any event, this is what the engineer told me. He said that it was designed for that particular building, not this building, but it was never designed or intended to be used commercially as a pump out station on Lake George. The problem, I'm going to lead into something else regarding the fill. MR. BREWER-Can I just ask you one question before you go on? Do you have any documentation at all about the septic system, when Scotty put it in, and? MR. ROULIER-What I'm trying to do is secure the actual plan from the engineer. The engineer told me that it was filed with the Department of Health, and also we think it was filed with DOT, but calls to the Department of Health, they have not been able to find it, and I would guess that, because of the age of the system, in excess of 20 years ago, they may not, may no longer have it. I am, though, trying to, the man that I spoke to, the engineer that did design the system was leaving for a few weeks, and when he's back in town, I'm hoping he'll provide me with an actual documentation as to the system that's in place. - 24 - - ~/ -- MR. MACEWAN-Had you ever contacted the Park Commission regarding the septic system? MR. ROULIER-That's how I initially, that was one of your questions earlier I wanted to respond to that. When I initially filed the complaint, I filed the complaint because all of a sudden I realized where the leachfield system was, and it is so close to the lake that it's inevitable that it winds up in the lake. So I went to the Park Commission and I filed the complaint. The response, the answer that the Lake George Park Commission gave me is that they visually went out to the site, Mike White and either Tom Smith or Roger Wardell, went out to the site, looked at the site, and that was it. I said to them, I said, that encompassed your entire examination of this septic system? They said. yes. I said, didn't you feel at that time that water tests were required? I said, how in God's name could you possibly make an evaluation of the system if you don't do water testing. Their comment was, we don't have the extra money to do the water test. I said to them at that meeting, if you don't do the water test, I'll do the water test, and that's when I went ahead and did two independent water tests that were analyzed by Hudson Environmental Services down here on County Line Road. MR. MACEWAN-How many times did you call the Park Commission? MR. ROULIER-How many times have I complained, or how many times have I called them? MR. MACEWAN-No, complained. MR. ROULIER-I made one complaint to them, and that was back in December of '93. MR. MACEWAN-So you feel that, to the best of your knowledge, they've only made one trip out there? MR. ROULIER-No. Subsequent, I would say subsequently, I'm not sure if it was after I provided them with the initial information regarding total coliform, they went back and they did a water sample. The man that did the water sample, his name is Roger Smith, and he told me that their water sample didn't indicate any pollutants. I said, Roger, where did you take your water sample from? Did you take it adjacent to the septic system? He said, no, I wasn't able to get close to the septic system, because it was frozen at that time. I took the water sample further away from where their leachfield area is. MR. MACEWAN-How much further away? MR. ROULIER-That's all that I know right now. MR. BREWER-Okay. Could I interrupt you one minute? Paul, you said that the septic system, or the pressure tank being moved has nothing to do with the application, but would this have anything to do with the SEQRA as we do it or not? If it doesn't, I would just as soon not belabor this and get on. MR. DUSEK-This Board's jurisdiction is, well, first of all, you start with the basic premise, of course, that you can only do what the law says that you can do. Before I came here tonight, I reviewed, because this was an issue, I reviewed the Ordinance under which you operate. You're operating a site plan review because this is a nonconforming use, and if you look in the language there, basically, although it's not 100 percent clear, at best, it indicates that you'll review the proposed extension or enlargement. Now you know you're reviewing an extension or an enlargement because Mr. Martin has made that determination, which he's entitled to do, unless, until and unless the Zoning Board should overturn that determination, you assume it's an enlargement or extension. With the fact that this is a nonconforming use and has a right to - 25 - exist as it exists, and they could continue to exist without any approvals, and with the reading of the language, the conclusion I draw, in terms of a leqal opinion, is that your scope of your review is limited to the extension and enlargement, and anything that you can find that flows from that extension and enlargement. In other words, if they were going to build, an easy example. Say they were going to build a restaurant on the side of the building, and obviously that was going to need, you know, anybody would tell you that that'll need a sewage capacity. Sewage is in definitely at that point, because it's related to the expansion of the project, or if they were going to move the sewage tank, then you might, you'd have an in, because that's what they're asking you for your site plan approval, but unless you can tie an aspect of the actual extension or enlargement plan to the sewer, I don't think you have any jurisdiction. The issues that are being raised, I think, are all issues that are properly before other agencies, such as the Lake George Park Commission, DEC, or Department of Health, perhaps. MR. BREWER-All right. So we're beating a dead horse with it? MR. DUSEK-I don't see where you have any jurisdiction over it. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then you almost have to end this conversation with us about the septic. MR. ROULIER-That's all right. I'll get on to the next one. Regarding the fill, I know I brought up the issue about when they were putting in the new site for the crane, how they had put in all this additional fill. The entire area of the marina, I just want to show you. I'm familiar with that Bay for approximately 36 years. So I was there before there was any marina there, and this entire area, if you know where the culvert is, that comes underneath the road, okay, there was nothing there except swamp land. The water used to come all the way adjacent to this road, and then over here , it flared out a little bit over onto this wetland right here, but this entire area right here, as you know it today, is completely filled in, and it has been filled in, not with little increments of fill. It has been filled in with probably millions of cubic yards of fill to get to the extent that it is today. Now, the problem, as I see it, as I indicated before, is that they added all this additional fill into the crane area, and as I explained it to you, how drilled through this sub floor. In the course of the past week, I talked to Mr. Tom Hallahan, who is a DEC Officer, and what he explained to me was that the Bay in Harris Bay and Katskill Bay and Dunhams Bay is really as you see the Bay, but he referred to it as a stagnant type Bay, almost like a peat moss type of Bay, and he said what happens is that underneath that Bay, is the actual lake. All right. So my point is that the parking lot, here we're talking about putting this walkway along here, putting in additional stone in on the parking lot, but the parking lot and the walkway are continuing to sink down further into Harris Bay. MR. BREWER-Again, Joe, I don't mean to keep cutting you off. If it doesn't have anything to do with the SEQRA review. MR. ROULIER-It has a lot to do with the SEQRA review. MR. BREWER-They're not asking us to do anything in the lake. MR. ROULIER-They're asking you to allow them to put additional fill into this area, and I think there's something in the SEQRA review that says, are you effecting any of the aquifers or anything along that line. I don't know what particular letter or number it is, but the adding of additional fill, the sinking of additional fill into Lake George is significantly effecting the aquifers in Harris Bay. MR. BREWER-Okay. So what you're saying is you don't want us to - 26 - - allow them to put fill in there? MR. ROULIER-They should not be allowed to put anymore fill. The fill is not simply washing out into the lake. What's happening is that the fill is actually sinking directly down into the bottom of Lake George, into the aquifer of Lake George. MR. RUEL-How far do you think it has to go before it stops? MR. ROULIER-How far? When they put in, one of the reasons for putting the new building here was that the old building that was there was sinking, and it finally got to the point where the bottom sills of the building were essentially under the water, particularly in the spring as you know. When they constructed the new building, they brought in pile drivers, and they put in treated poles, I would estimate 30 to 35 feet down underneath that building, to a point where they felt as though they hit bedrock. So it's very possible that underneath the bottom that you see here could go down as much as 35 feet. MR. RUEL-Well, what happens every time they fill it? Something's got to give. MR. ROULIER-It continues to sink, that's right. MR. RUEL-Yes, but something has to move, right? JOHN SALVADORE MR. SALVADORE-Yes. MR. RUEL-The silt? MR. SALVADORE-Yes. MR. RUEL-The silt moves out? MR. SALVADORE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Or comes up. MR. ROULIER-That was my point about the crane two weeks ago, when they were putting in the area for the crane right here, and they had put so much stone in the concentrated area, when that finally broke through the sphagnum bottom, there was an equal reaction to what they had put in there, and they literally raised, there's a series of docks that come across here, and the wetland comes back over here. They literally raised that right up out of the water. MR. RUEL-Is it gone now? MR. ROULIER-Yes. It has settled back down. MR. RUEL-Where has it gone to? MR. ROULIER-It's settled back into the general area where it was. MR. RUEL-You mean it spreads out? MR. ROULIER-It ballooned up, like this. MR. RUEL-And then what? MR. BREWER-It moved all the docks. MR. ROULIER-Then after a period of time, it went back down. MR. BREWER-Remember last week he explained it to us? MR. ROULIER-Right, but the problem is that this is going, no - 27 - ~ matter, they can put fill in now, and they can come back in another couple of years, and that's another issue. You didn't want to limit them. You said, what difference does it make how many yards of fill? If you leave this open, the project open as they say, they could put in, lets say, 500 cubic yards of fill this year, three years later come in and put another 500 or 1,000 cubic yards, and then come in and put more cubic yards. MR. BREWER-I think the fill has to do with site plan. MR. ROULIER-I just wanted to hit the issues that Mr. O'Donnell had brought up. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. ROULIER-That's a major issue, and I think that's something that the Harris Bay Yacht Club should have an engineering report addressing the additional fill and the consequences on the aquifer of Lake George. The other problem that I have, at least now, the parking lot fills up with water and then in the spring there's an even distribution of whatever, the gasoline, the oil, whatever accumulates in the course of the summer, flows back out into the waters of Harris Bay, which I'm not overly happy about, but what you're still going to get, where the crane is right here, all right, even though they put this walkway wall around here, you're still going to get the equivalent amount of water back in through there. It's going to be just like a thoroughfare. The water will come in, the water will go back out, and what I'm afraid of, instead of the pollutants at least being distributed through the entire area, or even going back into the wetland, now we're going to have this tremendous concentration of all the pollution coming back this way and into the lake. I can understand the reason for the walkway, because this year you're going to need raiders to get out to it. I can sympathize with them in that respect, but I don't think that the environment of Harris Bay has to be sacrificed for the people wanting to get to their boats. Okay. The gasoline tank. One of the, I've been before this Board several times, one of the big issues is. visually, how is something going to look. If you're going to build a boathouse, how is it going to look? Is it going to effect the neighbors, at least with the gasoline tank that they have here now, it's covered with grass, from a visual standpoint, from an aesthetic standpoint, it really doesn't bother anyone. It doesn't look bad. I would suggest, obviously, they need gasoline at this facility. Why can't the gas tank be put on the south side of the road. It would require additional piping, granted, but in addition to that if there were ever a catastrophe, at least the gasoline spill could be confined to that south portion and could be cut off at the culvert. That's my first concern. The second concern is from an aesthetic standpoint, they're going to put this huge concrete building housing a gas tank in this corner which is visible from all the traffic coming both ways, and from anyone that may stop here and look out at the marina. I think the Harris Bay Yacht Club, with some consideration, aesthetically, for the environment, they're talking about making it beautiful, could move the gas tank some place else, preferably to the south side of the road, and if nothing else, I don't know why the gas tank, if it's so contained as they say, can't go back into the original spot of the gas tank now and be replanted with grass. I just have a couple of other items that I would like to touch on here quickly. The addition to the shed, they have this little shed down here in front. There's a lot of electrical on it. I don't know. I've never been in the building. I probably will never be in it, but I can't understand why all of a sudden, here we go again. We're obstructing the view of people going by, of the lake, why the cigarette machines, or the vending machines, or something like that, can't be incorporated right into the main building on the property. I see no reason why we have to increase the size of the shed, which would only be convenient for the people over on this west dock. - 28 - ..- MR. BREWER-I don't see that shed on this map here, or is that flip flopped? MR. ROULIER-It should be right there. MR. BREWER-That's backwards, all right. MR. ROULIER-I, personally, see no reason why this shed has to be increased and why the vending machines, etc., can't be incorporated into some type of an outdoor access, right inside of this building. I mean, that seems logical. Why expand one building for something so insignificant, when they the larger building, and they can incorporate it right into a closet on the side of the building, or whatever. One last thing that I would like to talk about is the lighting. I'm very, very concerned about the lighting. I'm not so much concerned about the low level lighting that they use on the docks. I think they've done an outstanding job of making it subtle, making it attractive in that respect, and I'd like to congratulate them on that, but what I do get upset about is any type of high lighting that they may want to incorporate into the parking lot. For example, they indicated that they want some 12 foot lighting in the parking lot. The Bay is a great Bay. It's a great place to live. It's serene. It's calm, and I think anything, any type of lighting that we could put into the parking lot that will be subtle, low lighting to highlight where they have to go, instead of high lights that are going to literally be seen through the entire Bay. I think we have to address that, and I would hope that they would take my suggestions and try to go with reduced lighting in that area. That's all I have for now. Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? JOHN SALVADORE MR. SALVADORE-My name is John Salvadore. I'm a resident of North Queensbury. You talked a lot about the fill tonight, and the fact that it settles. What's happening with this fill is you're surcharging a very dynamic system called the wetland, and as that fill settles, it's a surcharge. It's not compacting itself. It's not the kind of material that compacts very much. So if you put in this fill, and you had an elevation, and for some reason or other this elevation drops six inches or a foot, it's not that material that it's compacting. Now, two things can happen. You can, in this consolidation process, you can displace the pour water ~n that subsurface material. That isn't going to happen because the lake is out there, keeping that pour water pressure constant. So you're displacing material. and this surcharge of the fill is de facto filling the lake. Now, to the extent that that's an environmental impact, you should take a look at that, but this is soil mechanics, and it's something you should be concerned about. The gasoline storage tank, I've heard double wall, concrete, whatever this is. That structure may need piling itself, because that's going to begin to settle. I don't know if that's a requirement or if that's looked at some place else. MR. BREWER-I would imagine the State, or whoever inspects the tank, would insure us that it's going to be done right. MR. SALVADORE-This is a construction detail. It's either done when it's built, or it's not done at all. MR. BREWER-Is there specs for gas tanks, Jim, do you know? MR. MARTIN-I wouldn't know. MR. BREWER-I would imagine any gas tank, if they're going to sell gas from it, the State has to be involved somehow. MR. SALVADORE-Well, the fact that you put it on a suitable - 29 - ~. --- foundation, it's not usually the. MR. BREWER-Yes. It would be our responsibility. MR. SALVADORE-It's a foundation. It has to be designed. What sits on it is something else, and as far as the testing of water in the wetlands adjacent to the septic system, that's been done by Warren County, the test date is available. It was part of the Lake George Park Commission back up for the promulgation of their wastewater regulations. Do you recall that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That was the test I was referring to that was done in '88 or '89. MR. SALVADORE-Yes. That was all done. MR. BREWER-Okay, well, it's going to be investigated again anyway in July, Jim tells us. MR. KROETZ-I have a quick question, do all the Board members, everyone realize that these are floating docks? MR. BREWER-Yes, ~ do. MR. KROETZ-Okay. The elevation of the gasoline in the tanks, of course, is considerably above the lake level. Isn't that true? MR. O'DONNELL-I would think that some of the gasoline is above the lake level. MR. KROETZ-Well, it must be a great deal. How much a diameter of the tank itself? MR. O'DONNELL-I currently don't know. There's two tanks with three thousand and four thousand gallons. MR. KROETZ-You agree that some of it's above. The point I'm making is this. They're floating docks. Now I remember this, one year, the anchor for one of the floating docks moved a big distance. My question to you is, what's the safeguard to keep the gasoline line that goes out to the end of the gas dock from rupturing, if the floating dock would lose it's anchor, which has happened once before. MR. BREWER-Okay. like to comment? statements. Is there anyone else from the public that would Okay. I'll let you briefly go· back over the MR. O'DONNELL-The facility is not sinking to China. If you take a look at the photograph, you can see the points at which each of these docks connects to the parking lot. There's a concrete pad there. It's the same concrete, the same set of concrete pads that was there before the system was replaced. They're still there. They're right where they were when they started. So, we're not sinking to China. I don't think that's a legitimate concern for the SEQRA review. The dock system that's in place now has piles that were driven into the lake bottom, and that's what holds them in place. It's different from the anchoring system that was there before. MR. BREWER-Are you satisfied with that answer? MR. KROETZ-Yes, but you know what, that's a good point to make, because the piles, lets say, could fail, but what I would think would be more, a better solution, is some safeguard, at the tank itself, that it would sense a rupture somehow. MR. O'DONNELL-It has that. MR. KROETZ-Okay. That makes sense. - 30 - MR. O'DONNELL-It has that, and the docks are held in place by a series of piles. MR. KROETZ-I like your other thing that there is a safeguard that somehow, I should think it could be done, that if a rupture occurred, that something would cut off, right near the tank. MR. O'DONNELL-It will cut off and it will sound an alarm. MR. KROETZ-That's good. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-There's a single tank going in, 6,000 gallon capacity? MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct. MR. PALING-And there's two tanks coming out, four and a three? MR. O'DONNELL-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. 0' DONNELL-And the two that are coming out are single wall steel, underground storage tanks. MR. BREWER-Okay. comments? Would you care to address the rest of the MR. O'DONNELL-They weren't relevant. No. MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. Anybody else got anything? All right, we weren't going to do this SEQRA tonight. Is that correct, Jim? We were just going to have the workshop? MR. MARTIN-It was my understanding it was not your intention to do that. MR. BREWER-Right. Are they on an agenda, or, we said we would waive the, they were going to be on the March meeting. MR. MARTIN-We have them on, I thought. MR. BREWER-Are they on the 22nd? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-But there's no need to take action then. That's totally up to the discretion of the Board. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then I guess we're done with Harris Bay for tonight. We'll see you the 22nd. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, there's one recommendation I might make to you, and that is, you may want to just poll the members of the Board to be sure that, at this point, they feel they have enough information so that they'll be ready to do the SEQRA on the 22nd. This is your opportunity to ask for more information, if you feel it's needed, from your engineer, or your planner or anybody else. MR. BREWER-Good point. Thank you. information about anything? Anybody else need more MR. PALING-I won't be here the 22nd. MR. BREWER-Maybe one thing I would ask for is, will that pad be put on tiers, that the tank is going? - 31 - -/ MR. O'DONNELL-Before we put it out there, we're going to have soil, before we put that fuel tank where we're proposing to put it, we're going to have a soils analysis done, and I would expect that there would be piles driven to support the foundation, although, as I stand here today, I can't say for absolutely sure. It would surprise me if we didn't have piles. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Just as a matter of information, why didn't you put the new tank underground? MR. O'DONNELL-Because underground storage tanks can't be inspected. MR. BREWER-Without digging them up. they? Yes, they can. Why can't MR. O'DONNELL-Because you've got to dig them up to do it. MR. BREWER-Not so. Ramsey's Sunoco had his tanks done a month ago. You can pressure test them. MR. O'DONNELL-You can pressure test them, and we do pressure test them, but the trend in the industry, as I understand it, is getting away from underground storage tanks. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, how do they test them? If there's an outer wall, they still have to pressure test them, is that not so? MR. O'DONNELL-That's true. MR. BREWER-So, if it was underground, why couldn't they pressure test them? MR. RUEL-It's the same test, isn't it? MR. BREWER-Sure it is. MR. O'DONNELL-I would think it is, but if you've got a problem, I think, and this would be guessing right at the moment, the problem is going to be less, as far as soil contamination, if the tank is (lost words) and you're going to be able to get at it quicker and more effectively. MR. RUEL-It looks a lot better, though, if it's underground. That's the only reason I brought it up. MR. BREWER-It doesn't look any better, Roger. You just can't see it. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know. MR. 0' DONNELL-Our concern was primarily for the environmental aspects. MR. BREWER-If there was a leak, it would be easier to get at and fix. MR. RUEL-Yes. Okay. I understand. MR. BREWER-All right. We'll take a recess, let the ZBA do two resolutions to us, and then we'll come back and finish this up in order. MR. MARTIN-The Florence Murphy matter. That night I made the announcement about a use variance being required, the guy just simply left. Pam points out, and rightly so, we need an actual tabling resolution. That's the reason why that's there. MR. BREWER-Don't we have to have his consent? - 32 - , "-..- .- MR. MARTIN-No. MR. BREWER-How come we do with everybody else? MR. MARTIN-That just institutes a 45 day time frame, I believe. The application has to be acted on or it could be withdrawn. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is, if we don't get his consent, after the 45 days, is that automatically an approval? MR. MARTIN-I don't believe so. MR. BREWER-I'd like to know for sure. Paul left, Jim. MR. STARK-Tim, what's your question? MR. BREWER-I'm asking, if we don't get the applicant's consent to a tabling, it sets a 45 day, when we table, it sets a 45 day time limit. If we don't get his consent, after the 45 days, does that automatically mean an approval, because if we take no action, and the time frame runs out, it's an automatic approval, and I don't want that to happen. MR. STARK-Who represented her? I don't even remember. MR. BREWER-The Woodmen of the World. MR. STARK-Okay. Yes. MR. BREWER-Because if we need his consent, Jim, we could table it until the, we can't even do anything until the 22nd, and have him come here, get his consent, and he can go. MR. HARLICKER-Or he could even give it in writing. MR. BREWER-Yes, that would be fine, because automatically, he could stall us for 45 days. Do you know what I mean? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd recommend that, Tim. Do a tabling until we get applicant's consent. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets do that. MR. MARTIN-By the 22nd. Is there a resolution made and voted on? MR. BREWER-We can't table it, Jim, without his consent. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. BREWER-So we'll just put it off until the 22nd and get his consent in writing. MR. MARTIN-You're going to run into the same problem, then, with Garden Time. MR. BREWER-I think he gave us his consent. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, he did. MR. BREWER-He gave us his consent. MR. MACEWAN-The minutes are right here. MR. STARK-He was going to try to get a signed statement from Markie and DeSantis. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-Right, but I think when we asked him if we could table it, he said okay. - 33 - '--- MR. MACEWAN-You asked him, we need your consent to table, okay, we need a motion to table, and he said it was okay. He gave consent. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then that one you can act on. MR. BREWER-We can. All right. So we need just a motion to table Site Plan 3-94. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-94 GARDEN TIME. INC., Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Tabled until a complete application is received. Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. The Girard Subdivision. MR. HARLICKER-Pam made a note that we should first have to rescind the previous resolutions for both three and four before you adopt a new one. MR. BREWER-Why do we have to rescind it if we tabled it with his consent? Why do we even have to do the resolution again? MR. HARLICKER-They were extensions. MR. BREWER-Not Number Two, I'm sorry. All right. MOTION TO RESCIND THE MOTION OF 1/27/94 FOR JAMES GIRARD, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MOTION TO GRANT EXTENSION OF FINAL APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13- 1993 JAMES GIRARD, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Final Stage was approved on October 19, 1993. Extension granted until issue of land dedication is resolved. Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MOTION TO RESCIND THE MOTION ON SITE PLAN NO. 52-93 FOR ROBERT TYRER MADE ON 1/27/94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE - 34 - '--- -- MOTION TO GRANT EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 52-93 ROBERT TYRER, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: The Planning Board grants an extension of time to April 1st for the applicant to address all issues stipulated in the resolution dated 10-28-93. Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. MACEWAN-What do we have to do with Michael DiPalma? MR. MARTIN-You're aCknowledging Lead Agency status, which apparently was not done during the process. It won't effect anything. This does not materially effect your review. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH Site Plan for Michael DiPalma RESOLUTION NO.; 4-1994 INTRODUCED BY: Craiq MacEwan WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, in connection with the Site Plan No. 59-93. 1-94. Michael DiPalma, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows. 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required for the action as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer - 35 - "-- -- NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Now, we have the two resolutions that the Zoning Board just did a couple of minutes ago. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE ·REVIEW OF VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS FOR MR. & MRS. JACK HODGKINS RESOLUTION NO.: 6 OF 1994 INTRODUCED BY: Craiq MacEwan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Jack Hodqkins have submitted an application for variance and site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as an addition to an existing residence, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Mr. & Mrs. Jack Hodqkins for variances and site plan review¡ 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired¡ 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days¡ and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review¡ and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS FOR MICHAEL BARODY RESOLUTION NO.: 7 OF 1994 INTRODUCED BY: Craiq MacEwan WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION - 36 - r "'--- --- SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS, Michael Barody has submitted an application for variance and site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as an expansion of a preexistinq. nonconforminq structure in a C.E.A., and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Michael Barody for a variance and site plan review¡ 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired ¡ 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-One quick thing George mentioned to me today. Jim. I mentioned it to Pam. The minutes that we have to approve, the three sets, Craig, I don't believe, was at two sets of those meetings, okay. Corinne is no longer on the Board. That leaves three members on the Board. What do we do? We can't approve them, literally cannot approve them. We were with four members for, Carol. MR. STARK-For October, November, and December we were only four members. MR. BREWER-Well, Carol was here in October, but she can't vote anymore because she's not on the Board anymore. MR. MACEWAN-There's no way we can get around this, is there? MR. BREWER-There's not. Ask our Attorney. anything else anybody has? Okay. Is there MR. MARTIN-Betty wanted me to raise the point about how site plan approvals are enforced, taking you through step by step. She went through her notes for your meeting, last night, with me, and she wanted me to go through with you, they're offering to go through - 37 - ~"'--- -- with you tonight. If you want, I'll wait until the next meeting, but I'll offer to do it now, if you'd like. MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe we can do that within our meeting, Tuesday. MRS. LABOMBARD-How about Friday at five? MR. MARTIN-I want to have an orientation session. MR. BREWER-I'd like to come, but I can't be here Friday at five. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. STARK-Make it at six o'clock before the next meeting. MR. BREWER-How long are we going to take? MR. MARTIN-I'd estimate an hour. If we go over that, you're always welcome to come back. MR. BREWER-All right. So the 22nd at six o'clock. MR. PALING-I won't be here the 22nd. MRS. LABOMBARD-Then lets not do it then. MR. BREWER-I want to know what we're going to do with the election of officers. I mean, I want to get it done. Lets do it now and get it over with. What I need is a nomination for the Chairman. We'll do that first. MOTION TO NOMINATE TIM BREWER FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. BREWER-Okay, a motion for Vice-Chairman. Does anybody else want to nominate anybody else for Chairman? Vice-Chairman. MOTION TO NOMINATE CRAIG MACEWAN FOR VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Secretary. Is there anybody else that wants to nominate anybody for Vice-Chairman? MOTION TO NOMINATE GEORGE STARK FOR SECRETARY OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer - 38 - ---- -' NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stark MR. MARTIN-Just to make sure we nominations, I'd like a resolution people are elected. do this right, put forth that those were those three MOTION THAT TIMOTHY BREWER BE CHAIRMAN. CRAIG MACEWAN BE VICE- CHAIRMAN. AND GEORGE STARK BE SECRETARY OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 9th day of February, 1994, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 39 -